4 ms·

Russia also apparently interpreted the tweet as encouragement to illegally hack into messages by a former Secretary of State, because they were encouraged to at

• cgriswald 8y ago
  > Russia also apparently interpreted the tweet as encouragement to illegally hack into messages by a former Secretary of State, because they were encouraged to attempt to illegally hack into messages by a former Secretary of State: First, the allegations against the Russians and Trump can be 100% true without this particular item being a request made and fulfilled. Second, what the article claims as hard fact is not strictly supported by the indictment, which uses the legalese "on or about", which means prosecutors are sure it happened, but not exactly the timing. Third, per the indictment this was a part of an ongoing Russian campaign, so it is hard to imagine the Russians named were "encouraged" to engage in behavior they were already engaged in. Fourth, as the article notes, no link between the statement and the activity is alleged in the indictment. Finally, this would be very foolish of Trump. That's not to say he can't be foolish, but it does suggest that we should think twice about such an interpretation; especially since the Russians win here regardless of the outcome. Either they get what they want or they create even more division in American politics and make the president weak. (And, for the record, this 'request' suggestion is some of the less hyperbolic stuff I've seen.) I already think there's fire because I'm looking at fire. I just don't see the value in peddling weak interpretations (or, in many cases, egregious hyperbole) as fact.
  • lovehashbrowns 8y ago
    > Third, per the indictment this was a part of an ongoing Russian campaign, so it is hard to imagine the Russians named were "encouraged" to engage in behavior they were already engaged in. This part confuses me. Is it not possible to encourage someone to do something if they're already in the process of doing so? I think the only part of this puzzle that's in contention is if the public statement directly led to the hack of the emails taking place, as in a cause and effect thing: 1. Hack the servers. 2. Okay, the servers are now hacked. But what the encouragement statement might have done instead is: 1. The servers are being hacked. 2. "... I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing ..." (encouragement/invitation). 3. The servers are now hacked. So the statement that you had an issue with isn't wrong, technically or in spirit. And this part: > Finally, this would be very foolish of Trump. That's not to say he can't be foolish, but it does suggest that we should think twice about such an interpretation is more frustrating than anything else. Based on part actions and statements, I disagree with being charitable and trying to find good interpretations. I would only agree on being charitable if he had been reading off of the teleprompter or a written statement, because that's when Trump actually appears composed.
  • koube 8y ago
    It's true that they were already engaged in hacking attempts, but there was a definite new response "on or about" the date of the tweet: > For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton’s personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign. Emphasis added. I see your point that "on or about" is vague, but it seems like they just appended it to every date for legalese reasons. They would have the timestamps for most of the dates in the document, it's not like they're not sure when the phishing emails were sent. Plus, they're sure about the time, but not the date? How does that make sense? Regarding the connection not being spelled out in the document, it's not legally relevant so they didn't think to include it. Just because a tangentially related legal document doesn't find it relevant doesn't mean the request being made and accepted is impossible. What's more likely, that Donald Trump made the request, and then the Russians stayed late at the office completely coincidentally to do exactly what was in the request, or that the Russians saw the tweet and stayed late at the office to fulfill the request? I think most reasonable people would agree that the request was being made, but personal interpretation is moot here because the involved parties agreed that it was a request and fulfilled it.
    • cgriswald 8y ago
      > ... but personal interpretation is moot here because the involved parties agreed that it was a request and fulfilled it. The exact point is that this is not a fact. This is the conclusion you are reaching based solely on a coincidence of time and excluding other factors, including the months long campaign already operating by the Russians. > What's more likely, that Donald Trump made the request, and then the Russians stayed late at the office completely coincidentally to do exactly what was in the request, or that the Russians saw the tweet and stayed late at the office to fulfill the request? It's just as likely the Russians thought it would be worthwhile, funny, disruptive, or otherwise desirable to include these targets because he said this, but that it was neither a request nor a fulfillment of that request. The timing of the event can be significant without it being a literal request. > Emphasis added. Yes, this is the first time they attacked those particular accounts, yet it is a long list of attacks made by this group. This isn't really saying anything at all except repeating that you consider the timing of it to be significant.